Featured Post

That's right. I'm talking to you, you tiny little pansy playing at righteous outrage and totalitarian politics. You want to stand ou...

TheChurchMilitant

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture."
-- Pope Sixtus III

Monday, September 11, 2017

No, we didn't do it.No, we didn't deserve it.No, the Masons, the Jews, and the Trilateral Commission didn't conspire to do it.No, it did not unite us.Finally, no it did not change AmeriKKKa one bit. We STILL haven't won a war since 1945. (And it looks like commie Korea is going to have the last laugh at our expense.)

Residents on Iceland's remote farm of Stapakot were jolted awake on March 14, 1828, when a maid from a neighboring property burst in to tell them that a fire was raging and two men were trapped inside. It was a lie. The men were already dead—clubbed with a hammer and stabbed 12 times. Despite the years, it's a crime that Icelanders have never forgotten since the convicted killers were the last people executed on the island nation. On Saturday, the crime discussed in books, films, and a pop song is being analyzed by a mock court, operating under modern rules, that will for the first time address the motivation for the killings, specifically whether two maids were abused by Natan Ketilsson, the self-taught doctor they killed along with his guest, reports the AP.

Agnes Magnusdottir and Sigridur Gudmundsdottir said the act was masterminded by Fridrik Sigurdsson, a 17-year-old who held a grudge against Ketilsson. Gudmundsdottir, 16, was sentenced to life in prison in Denmark. But Sigurdsson and Magnusdottir, 32, were decapitated with an ax, with the brother of one of the victims acting as executioner. Their heads were afterwards jammed on sticks for public viewing. The case highlights differing attitudes toward capital punishment. In modern Iceland, the usual prison sentence for murder is 16 years or less.(Emphasis mine. F.G.) An author who wrote about the crime tells the AP readers often ask what the outcome of the case would be if it were tried under today's rules. Now they'll get their answer. Seats for the retrial in Hvammstangi have long been sold out.

Hey Catholic kiddies, here comes "Our parent who's in heaven, great is your name." AGAIN!One type is the dedicated Leninist-Leninist who infiltrates the Church to use Her and Her good name to spread their hate-filled inhuman ideology. The other type is the Catholic who has succumbed to despair because mankind is just as sinful today as it was yesterday. These poor souls readily turn to Leviathan because they believe it can use its earthly power to force men to be good, or at least to relieve the earthly suffering caused by sin. Not only is this way of thinking a grave sin, it is patently absurd. What is government but sinful people who passed the Civil Service exam? The blame for government failing to end sin or alleviate suffering can be spread over the millions of federal, state, and local officials (effectively meaning nobody is responsible) and this is considered a suitable substitute for the Sacraments by people who seem to have lost faith in the promises of God.With this latest move to drag the Catholic Church back into the Dark Ages of the 1960s and 1970s, Francis appears to be more like the first type instead of the second, which I assumed he was since his election. But this decision is an insidious infection as anyone who is over 40 (and was paying attention) can attest. Just wait until some "ladies" in your parish put on a "Dance Mass".Two points to keep in mind:In the article below, you will see a few references to Vatican II and its "decree" that Mass must be said in the "vernacular". That word mean the local language of the place where Mass is being said, not the local street slang or even emojis. Just like every word of the Second Vatican Council, the fascist left bullies people into accepting that "vernacular" means whatever suits the left's purposes that day.The Mass is based on the Word of God, as any reading of Catholic liturgy will prove. I once took a Jewish friend to Mass with me and throughout it, he kept pointing at the missal and saying things like "That's ours. You took that from us." and he didn't even bother mentioning the first reading from Jeremiah or the Psalms we sung. (Afterwards, he did ask if we sing Psalms at every Mass.)Letting anyone, even a bishop, to alter the liturgy risks altering His Word, which is something we Catholics should leave to our benighted protestant friends.

Pope Francis, who has used his absolute authority in the Vatican to decentralize power from Rome, made a widespread change Saturday to the ways, and words, in which Roman Catholics worship by amending Vatican law to give national bishop conferences greater authority in translating liturgical language.“It’s hugely important,” said Rita Ferrone, a specialist in Catholic liturgy who writes for Commonweal, a liberal Catholic magazine. She said that by loosening Rome’s grip on the language of prayers, Francis had restored the intention of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and erased some of the rollbacks of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. “It was especially astute that he put it into canon law because it makes it official.”Francis has not been shy in efforts to reform the church and has tread on some of its most delicate subjects, from challenging the Roman bureaucracy that runs the church to emphasizing acceptance of gays and the divorced.On Saturday he stepped squarely onto the battlefield of the so-called Liturgy Wars, which, especially in the English-speaking church, have divided liberals and conservatives for decades.Catholic progressives have advocated a greater use of contemporary idioms consistent with the Second Vatican Council reforms of the 1960s and many bristled under what they considered a heavy and out-of-touch hand from Rome.Conservative opponents favored the Latin Mass, or at least more faithful translations to it in the local language, and they wanted the church hierarchy in Rome to ensure global universality and unity by making all of those translations uniform.By amending the Code of Canon Law, Francis appears to have sided with the liberals in the debate and shifted the ownership of translations to the local bishops.The amendment is a significant development in a liturgical schism that has split Catholics across the world and was evident at the highest echelons of the church.In 2007, Benedict himself issued a Motu Proprio increasing access to the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, a move seen as a microcosm of the church’s shift toward traditionalism during his papacy.In changing the law, which will go into effect on Oct. 1, the pope recalled that the Vatican Council entrusted bishops with the “weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy.” He added that “in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.”He also acknowledged the bitter feelings that the fights over liturgical language have produced, writing, “It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen” between local churches and the Vatican. He then called for “reciprocal trust” between the local churches and the Vatican department with liturgical oversight, known as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.But Vatican observers say trust is in short supply between the pope and the cardinal he selected in 2014 to run the department, Robert Sarah.A hero to Vatican conservatives — and for many, a desired candidate in the next conclave to choose a new pope — Cardinal Sarah has been undermined by partisans of Francis who have worked on a committee to loosen the Guinean cardinal’s cherished Latin literalism.In 2016, Cardinal Sarah called for priests to celebrate Mass ad orientem, or with their backs to the congregation. Francis promptly issued an unusual public rebuke. And in April of this year, Cardinal Sarah sent a letter honoring Benedict’s support of the Latin Mass, asserting that “modern liturgy” had caused devastation and schism. Benedict wrote that “the liturgy is in good hands,” in an afterward to a book the cardinal wrote this year.But the liturgy seems to have been in the hands of Francis all along.Saturday’s Vatican announcement was made as the pope visited Medellin, Colombia, the site of a landmark 1968 meeting that emphasized local Latin American influence in church decision-making. It also came just weeks after the pope — not one to invoke his magisterial authority — did just that when he announced that the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council was “irreversible.”Progressive interpretations of those reforms in the 1960s provoked a backlash, and a “reform of the reform” movement, which ultimately had advocates at the top of the church during the reigns of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.In 2001, the Vatican issued the Liturgiam Authenticam, or Authentic Liturgy, instructing that translations from Latin needed to be “in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content.”That same year, the Vatican established Vox Clara, or Clear Voice, a committee to scrutinize English-language translations of the texts and prayers included in the Roman Missal. The committee advocated a close fidelity to the Latin.In 2006, the Vatican successfully pressured American bishops to accept a more literal translation of well-known English prayers. In 2011, many English-speaking priests panned their effort, finding the language clunky and archaic.Too bad for them. They aren't stage actors having to deal with Shakespeare. (Come to think of it, have you noticed how pathetic and lame those "modern" interpretations of The Bard are?) They are acting in the stead of the Christ Himself, and if His words seem clunky and archaic, they should find a new line of work.While noting the unity instilled by the Roman Rite, Francis argued for the beauty and accessibility of local languages. He wrote on Saturday that “vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith.”

That's right. I'm talking to you, you tiny little pansy playing at righteous outrage and totalitarian politics. You want to stand out? You want to piss people off? Would you like them to fear you?

Do you want them to feel their inferiority in their very marrow?EVERY TIME YOU FEEL TEMPTED TO PULL OUT YOUR PHONE TO SEE WHAT NON-CLEVER PHRASE TAYLOR SWIFT HAS COPYRIGHTED TODAY......pull out a book and read instead. You might actually learn something and you might just become a man someday.

Suckers!The only noise Orange Clump made during the campaign that even came close to making sense was its immigration noise, and the Clumpentariat swallowed it like a $2 whore.GermaineGreerInDrag, who was somebody for a while, can't stand the fact everybody knows she's a frustrated totalitarian with a God complex.From Newsweek?

Steve Bannon Says the Far-Right Hates Trump's DACA DecisionShe means Real Conservatives.People are wrong to think President Donald Trump’s decision to pave the way for the deportation of 800,000 immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children plays to the far-right, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said in an interview.“Trust me, the guys in the far-right, the guys on the conservative side, are not happy with this,” Bannon told CBS News host Charlie Rose in an interview to air on 60 Minutes this Sunday...Wow. The dumb bitch finally admitted she really is a right fascist thug.Remember when the love of her life convinced you suckers that the dumbass Mexicans were going to pay for his masturbatory fantasy "wall"?I do.

Who am I to argue with the fine men and women of former President Obama's DHS?In fact, as someone who has been fighting with antifa defenders for a good while, I feel a bit like the defense lawyer in Miracle on 34th Street when the U.S. Post Office confirms that his client is actually Santa Claus: Hey, don't take my word for it; "terrorist violence" is the term chosen by professionals working for a Democratic White House.With this moral victory secured, let me now break with some of my friends on the right and say that I think it's a bad, or at least premature, idea to go all the way and label antifa an actual terrorist organization.Before I explain why, we should spend a moment considering how we got here in the first place.Many defenders of the antifa cause insist these loosely organized activists are simply anti-fascist, and that fighting fascism is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card for lawlessness, violence and intimidation. That's nonsense. The state has a monopoly on all violence save for self-defense. In a nation of laws, people cannot exempt themselves from the rules because they don't like someone's ideas.Even if fighting fascists were a get-out-of-jail-free card, giving a bunch of adrenalized anarchists unilateral authority to designate fascists strikes me as an incandescently stupid idea. Antifa's understanding of what qualifies as fascist includes conservative campus speakers, defenders of free speech and even plain old Republicans.And yet, college administrators, local politicians and police departments, particularly in places like Berkeley, have given antifa protesters a kind of benefit of the doubt.And so have some in the media who think there's something romantically heroic about direct action and, in the Trump era, resistance.This isn't to say that there have been no arrests. But university officials and local politicians have been intimidated on numerous occasions. In Portland, a parade was canceled because an email threatened violence if Republicans were allowed to march in it. In Berkeley, Mayor Jesse Arreguin urged UC Berkeley to cancel "Free Speech Week" for fear of violence, giving antifa a heckler's veto. So much for the home of the free speech movement.Predictably, such responses have only emboldened the goon squads.Still, the local authorities that are contributing to the problem are also the best solution for it. In fact, Arreguin has the right idea when he says antifa should be labeled a gang.Like many gangs, antifa is less of a sophisticated criminal enterprise and more of an excuse for hooligans to make trouble. Maybe local police departments aren't up to the task of combating them, but we won't know until they stop appeasing them.Meanwhile, officially designating antifa a terrorist organization would most likely be opening a Pandora's box (for reasons my National Review colleague Andrew McCarthy recently laid out in detail). There is a huge difference between countering foreign terrorists, who have no constitutional rights, and domestic ones.The federal government is constitutionally empowered to fight foreign threats. The states are supposed to fight crime, even domestic-terrorist violence.The groundswell behind the label "terrorist" for antifa is a call to blur that distinction. Although treating American radicals and vigilantes the way we treat foreign members of the Islamic State or al-Qaida might play well in certain corners of the populist right these days, serious conservatives should be very skeptical about granting the federal government new police powers, which could be used to other ends in future administrations.Elevating antifa to the category of terrorist organization would fuel the worst trends in our politics.It would entice President Trump to indulge his strongman shtick, and it would give antifa the stature it clearly craves. It would also likely accelerate vigilante violence among the white nationalists.Launching a federal crusade against domestic enemies would only fuel the fallacy that anyone antifa attacks is a fascist. We should fight crime, whatever guise it takes, on the local level -- as the founders intended.

The explosive new book from Dinesh D’Souza, author of the #1 national bestsellers Hillary’s America, America, and Obama’s America.What is “the big lie” of the Democratic Party? That conservatives—and President Donald Trump in particular—are fascists. Nazis, even. In a typical comment, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says the Trump era is reminiscent of “what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor.”But in fact, this audacious lie is a complete inversion of the truth. Yes, there is a fascist threat in America—but that threat is from the Left and the Democratic Party. The Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism and routinely borrows tactics of intimidation and political terror from the Nazi Brownshirts.To cover up their insidious fascist agenda, Democrats loudly accuse President Trump and other Republicans of being Nazis—an obvious lie, considering the GOP has been fighting the Democrats over slavery, genocide, racism and fascism from the beginning.Now, finally, Dinesh D’Souza explodes the Left’s big lie. He expertly exonerates President Trump and his supporters, then uncovers the Democratic Left’s long, cozy relationship with Nazism: how the racist and genocidal acts of early Democrats inspired Adolf Hitler’s campaign of death; how fascist philosophers influenced the great 20th century lions of the American Left; and how today’s anti-free speech, anti-capitalist, anti-religious liberty, pro-violence Democratic Party is a frightening simulacrum of the Nazi Party.Hitler coined the term “the big lie” to describe a lie that “the great masses of the people” will fall for precisely because of how bold and monstrous the lie is. In The Big Lie, D’Souza shows that the Democratic Left’s orchestrated campaign to paint President Trump and conservatives as Nazis to cover up its own fascism is, in fact, the biggest lie of all.How did the fascist left deal with such a book? If you think they cogently argued with it point by point, you might be a dumbass. They lied about its sales numbers.From FuxNews:

Regnery, which publishes authors such as Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and President Donald Trump, is displeased that Dinesh D'Souza's book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left,” was only No. 7 on the Times’ latest best-sellers list even though a different organization that tracks book sales ranked it at No. 1.

“I ask you to consider this: We are often told it’s foolish to bite the hand that feeds you,” Marji Ross, president and publisher of Regnery, said in a letter to its authors. “I say it’s just as foolish to feed the hand that bites you.”However, a spokesman for the Times noted that conservative authors have frequently ranked high and in big numbers on its best-sellers list.“Our goal is that the lists reflect authentic best sellers,” Times spokesman Jordan Cohen said...HAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one, Jordie!Of course, quite a few of Regnery's authors are Fake Conservatives, but that doesn't mean The Old Gray Whore is a virgin either.

From The Old Gray Whore:For conservatives, trump's deal with democrats is nightmare come trueYou ignorant suckers are getting exactly what you deserve: Fascist lies and totalitarian government.It is the scenario that President Trump’s most conservative followers considered their worst nightmare, and on Wednesday it seemed to come true: The dealmaking political novice, whose ideology and loyalty were always fungible, cut a deal with Democrats.

If Mr. Trump’s agreement with the two Democratic leaders, Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi, to increase the debt limit and finance the government for three months did not yet represent the breaking point between the president and his core, hard-right base of support, it certainly put him closer than he has ever been to tipping his fragile political coalition into open revolt.The Orange Ass-Wipe crowed that he, Nancy, and Chuck got something done.Shit, Stalin got a lot done...

Stunned and irate, conservative leaders denounced news that Mr. Trump had agreed to rely on Democratic votes to win congressional approval for a temporary extension of the debt ceiling and funding of the government until mid-December.

“These are the moments that can derail President Trump’s presidency,” said David Bozell, the president of For America and a Trump supporter, who added that the president’s base would be watching the next few months very carefully. “He is not Teflon,” Mr. Bozell added. “Trump spent some of his own political capital today...”

Thursday, August 31, 2017

In her first column after Berkeley, this dumb bitch defines "conservative" as what the Orange Mess-iah does and admits she's a "liberal". Two can play that game, sweetie.A "liberal" is any fascist who ignores and therefore excuses left-fascist violence while at the same time constantly whining about how evil everybody to the right of Che Guevara is.

Sorry, princess, I'm pretty sure it's only you who can't think straight.One of the barriers to sensible politics is the opportunism that so often infects our debates about what government is there for, where we want it to be energetic, and how we can keep it from violating the basic rights of citizens.The muddled nature of our discussions of these matters has been brought home by two unfortunate events: The mass suffering unleashed by Harvey and President Trump's pardon of former sheriff Joe Arpaio.In the case of the vicious storm, we are reminded that some politicians think government is great when it helps their own constituents and wasteful if it helps anyone else.We also regularly assert that government is better when it prevents problems than when it focuses primarily on cleaning up after the fact. But when environmentalists suggest that development can be carried out in more sustainable ways or that climate change is worth dealing with, they are mocked as "anti-business" or "crisis-mongers." Then a crisis comes, and we wonder why the politicians were so short-sighted.As for the Arpaio pardon, it is seen as technically legal because presidential authority in this area is almost unlimited. But it may be the most dangerous act of Trump's presidency. The occupant of the White House has claimed the power to permit government agents to violate the constitutional rights of Americans and to override the courts if he doesn't like what they're doing. This is the largest single step toward autocracy Trump has taken.What we hear all the time is that conservatives are for "small government" and liberals are for "big government." But this is very misleading shorthand.Yes, liberals typically favor more social insurance programs, including expanded guarantees of health care, and more government regulation of business in what they insist is the public interest. Conservatives are often critical of some or all of these initiatives.But liberals (often joined by libertarians) are among the first to stand up against government violations of the civil rights of individuals. Many conservatives -- most certainly including Trump -- use the "law and order" battle cry to accuse liberals concerned about civil liberties of being "soft on crime." (In the case of the Arpaio pardon, Trump seems to be for his version of "order" but indifferent to the "law" part.)So who is really for big government and who is against it? Which is more threatening to our liberties: higher taxes to pay for new benefits, or an expansive view of police powers and presidential prerogatives?The conversation about disaster relief helps clarify another issue. The conservative critique of government aid is that it is on some level unjust because it takes money from one group of people and gives it to another. Applying this logic to natural disasters, why should parts of the country that will almost never experience hurricanes help the hurricane-prone areas? After all, people don't have to live in places subject to hurricanes.Well, it's also true that some places get tornadoes and others don't. Some experience earthquakes and others don't. Some people live near rivers that overflow their banks and others don't.Disaster relief is premised on an old-fashioned "there but for the grace of God go I" solidarity. We are happy to see government give a hand to our fellow citizens facing sudden catastrophe today and assume that they will help us if we face comparable challenges tomorrow.This is why it is entirely appropriate to call out the hypocrisy of Texas conservatives who voted against assistance for the victims of Superstorm Sandy in New York and New Jersey but are now asking for federal help on behalf of their folks. They broke this basic rule of solidarity in the name of an ideology that, when the chips are down, they don't really believe in. Of course we should help all the areas devastated by Harvey. I'd just appreciate hearing our Texas conservative friends, beginning with Sen. Ted Cruz, admit they were wrong.Call me a liberal (I won't mind) but I do believe in using government's taxing powers reasonably to direct help toward people who really need it, and in regulations to protect the environment and prevent catastrophe. But I also believe it is vital to stand firm when government officials violate constitutional rights, which is what Sheriff Arpaio was found to have done with Latinos in Arizona and why pardoning him is so dangerous.We can certainly debate where government compassion becomes overreach. Unfortunately, we're not anywhere close to such a measured and civilized dialogue.

For the title character in "Ingrid Goes West ," there is no question, and perhaps no distinction.

Every once in a while, Hollyweird holds up a mirror for us instead of a propaganda poster.

Once in a great while, that is.

Powered by Aubrey Plaza's searing performance, director and co-writer Matt Spicer's feature debut explores such a dark side of social media obsession, it's hard to consider it satire. It's a story about young women who find validation in likes and followers, who equate social media experiences with real-life ones.

Like so many millennials, Ingrid (Plaza) is an Instagram junkie.

Her phone is always in hand, a portal to all that is #perfect and #blessed. Any free moment is spent scrolling through photos. The double-thumb-tap she uses to "like" images is as instinctive as blinking.

But she's also obsessive and mentally unstable. She once crashed a wedding and attacked the bride after fixating on her expertly curated Instagram profile.

Flush with cash after her mother dies, Ingrid moves to Los Angeles to be near her latest social media obsession: Blonde, beautiful Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen), whose life on Instagram looks like a chic California magazine captioned with literary quotes and hashtags like #weekendvibes.

Ingrid styles her hair like Taylor's. She eats at her favorite breakfast spot. She buys the purse Taylor posted about. Then she works out a way to meet the Instagram star so they can be friends.

Olsen is pitch perfect as sunny, superficial Taylor, who says everything is "the best" and has no qualms about asking a gas station attendant to lay on the ground to snap a perfectly-framed social media pic.

The screenplay by Spicer and co-writer David Branson Smith looks at how Taylor's appetite for admiration might allow for a friend like Ingrid — her sycophantic fawning feeds right into Taylor's million-follower ego.

Plaza disappears into the unhinged Ingrid, a character exciting in her sheer unlikeability. She lies and steals to get what she wants. She exploits trust and kindness. But she brims with a deep human fear of inadequacy, one she hopes internet popularity might remedy. Plaza brings a vulnerability and desperation to Ingrid that makes her relatable. She's obsessive and unstable, but she just wants to be liked, online or anywhere.

O'Shea Jackson plays Ingrid's landlord/neighbor/admirer Dan, this story's version of the manic pixie dream girl. Though Jackson gets to show off his sparkling smile more here than in "Straight Outta Compton," his character exists to be Ingrid's savior and moral foil.

"Ingrid Goes West" has fun with some social media tropes and Southern California tendencies, but it feels less like a satire than a cautionary tale, for both the envious and the envied. It dips into rich territory by examining the covetousness social media inspires, not just for things, but for attention. Still, even someone with millions of followers can feel lonely or unseen.

Taylor and Ingrid may approach Instagram from opposite sides, but both live in a world where "likes" have tremendous value.

"Ingrid Goes West," a Neon release, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America for "language throughout, drug use, some sexual content and disturbing behavior." Running time: 97 minutes. Three stars out of four.

On the one hand, Google can spend its money promoting totalitarianism if that is what it wants to do. The company obviously gets along with the Slave Chinese regime. Who cares if the Chinese people are being oppressed? As long as the money keeps coming in...

In the hours after European antitrust regulators levied a record $2.7 billion fine against Google in late June, an influential Washington think tank learned what can happen when a wealthy tech giant is criticized.

The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the American left and helped Google shape those debates.

But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had been chairman of New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.

The statement disappeared from New America’s website, only to be reposted without explanation a few hours later. But word of Mr. Schmidt’s displeasure rippled through New America, which employs more than 200 people, including dozens of researchers, writers and scholars, most of whom work in sleek Washington offices where the main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab.” The episode left some people concerned that Google intended to discontinue funding, while others worried whether the think tank could truly be independent if it had to worry about offending its donors.

Those worries seemed to be substantiated a couple of days later, when Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a larger corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as executive chairman.

Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that “the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,” according to an email from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team — nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows — would be exiled from New America.

While she asserted in the email, which was reviewed by The New York Times, that the decision was “in no way based on the content of your work,” Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of “imperiling the institution as a whole.”

Mr. Lynn, in an interview, charged that Ms. Slaughter caved to pressure from Mr. Schmidt and Google, and, in so doing, set the desires of a donor over the think tank’s intellectual integrity.

“Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People are so afraid of Google now.”--------------------------------------------------------------Remember the lesson of the Mensheviks, (and all others who wouldn't toe the line of the most powerful) kiddies:FromSpartacus Educational :Mensheviks:Robert V. Daniels, the author of Red October: The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 (1967) has argued: "Between Lenin and the Mensheviks the basic difference was more temperamental than doctrinal. The Mensheviks, like many earlier critics of Russian injustice, were idealists driven by sympathy for the masses but disinclined to conspire and fight;...Stalin's Purges:On 23rd December 1930, Isaak Illich Rubin was arrested by the secret police and charged with participation in a plot to establish an underground organization called the "Union Bureau of Mensheviks." Rubin's sister later reported: "They put Rubin for days in the kartser, the punishment cell. My brother at forty-five was a man with a diseased heart and diseased joints. The kartser was a stone hole the size of a man; you couldn't move in it, you could only stand or sit on the stone floor. But my brother endured this torture too, and left the kartser with a feeling of inner confidence in himself, in his moral strength."The OGPU now decided to change their tactics. On 28th January, 1931, he was taken to the cell of a prisoner named Vasil'evskii. The interrogator told the prisoner: "We are going to shoot you now, if Rubin does not confess." Vasil'evskii went on his knees and begged Rubin: "Isaac Il'ich, what does it cost you to confess?" According to his sister, "my brother remained firm and calm, even when they shot Vasil'evskii right there". The next night they took him to the cell of a prisoner called Dorodnov: "This time a young man who looked like a student was there. My brother didn't know him. When they turned to the student with the words, 'You will be shot because Rubin will not confess,' the student tore open his shirt at the breast and said, 'Fascists, gendarmes, shoot!' They shot him right there."The killing of Dorodnov persuaded Rubin to confess to being a member of "Union Bureau of Mensheviks" and to implicate his friend and mentor, David Riazanov. Rubin's sister continued the story: "Rubin's position was tragic. He had to confess to what had never existed, and nothing had: neither his former views; nor his connections with the other defendants, most of whom he didn't even know, while others he knew only by chance; nor any documents that had supposedly been entrusted to his safekeeping; nor that sealed package of documents which he was supposed to have handed over to Riazanov. In the course of the interrogation and negotiations with the investigator, it became clear to Rubin that the name of Riazanov would figure in the whole affair, if not in Rubin's testimony, then in the testimony of someone else. And Rubin agreed to tell the whole story about the mythical package. My brother told me that speaking against Riazanov was just like speaking against his own father. That was the hardest part for him."V. V. Sher was another witness who gave evidence against Riazanov. One of his friends, Victor Serge, argued in his book, Memoirs of a Revolutionary (1951): "Of course his heretical colleagues were often arrested, and he defended them, with all due discretion. He had access to all quarters and the leaders were a little afraid of his frank way of talking. His reputation had just been officially recognized in a celebration of his sixtieth birthday and his life's work when the arrest of the Menshevik sympathizer Sher, a neurotic intellectual who promptly made all the confessions that anyone pleased to dictate to him, put Riazanov beside himself with rage. Having learnt that a trial of old Socialists was being set in hand, with monstrously ridiculous confessions foisted on them, Riazanov flared up and told member after member of the Politburo that it was a dishonor to the regime, that all this organized frenzy simply did not stand up and that Sher was half-mad anyway." Roy A. Medvedev, who has carried out a detailed investigation of the case, argued in Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism (1971) that the Union Bureau of Mensheviks did not exist. "The political trials of the late twenties and early thirties produced a chain reaction of repression, directed primarily against the old technical intelligentsia, against Cadets who had not emigrated when they could have, and against former members of the Social Revolutionary, Menshevik, and nationalist parties."--------------------------------------------------------------

Google rejected any suggestion that it played a role in New America’s split with Open Markets. Riva Sciuto, a Google spokeswoman, pointed out that the company supports a wide range of think tanks and other nonprofits focused on information access and internet regulation. “We don’t agree with every group 100 percent of the time, and while we sometimes respectfully disagree, we respect each group’s independence, personnel decisions and policy perspectives.”"Golly, Fyodor, it's just a search engine."Money is Power.Information is Power.

New America’s executive vice president, Tyra Mariani, said it was “a mutual decision for Barry to spin out his Open Markets program,” and that the move was not in any way influenced by Google or Mr. Schmidt.

“New America financial supporters have no influence or control over the research design, methodology, analysis or findings of New America research projects, nor do they have influence or control over the content of educational programs and communications efforts,” Ms. Mariani said. She added that Mr. Lynn’s statement praising the European Union’s sanctions against Google had been temporarily removed from New America’s website because of “an unintentional internal issue” unrelated to Google or Mr. Schmidt.

Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that “the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,” according to an email from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team — nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows — would be exiled from New America.

While she asserted in the email, which was reviewed by The New York Times, that the decision was “in no way based on the content of your work,” Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of “imperiling the institution as a whole.”

Mr. Lynn, in an interview, charged that Ms. Slaughter caved to pressure from Mr. Schmidt and Google, and, in so doing, set the desires of a donor over the think tank’s intellectual integrity.

“Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People are so afraid of Google now.”

Google rejected any suggestion that it played a role in New America’s split with Open Markets. Riva Sciuto, a Google spokeswoman, pointed out that the company supports a wide range of think tanks and other nonprofits focused on information access and internet regulation. “We don’t agree with every group 100 percent of the time, and while we sometimes respectfully disagree, we respect each group’s independence, personnel decisions and policy perspectives.”

New America’s executive vice president, Tyra Mariani, said it was “a mutual decision for Barry to spin out his Open Markets program,” and that the move was not in any way influenced by Google or Mr. Schmidt.

“New America financial supporters have no influence or control over the research design, methodology, analysis or findings of New America research projects, nor do they have influence or control over the content of educational programs and communications efforts,” Ms. Mariani said. She added that Mr. Lynn’s statement praising the European Union’s sanctions against Google had been temporarily removed from New America’s website because of “an unintentional internal issue” unrelated to Google or Mr. Schmidt.

Ms. Slaughter also wrote on Twitter that the article was “false,” but was unable to cite any errors. New America would not make Ms. Slaughter available for an interview.

It is difficult to overstate Mr. Lynn’s influence in raising concerns about the market dominance of Google, as well as of other tech companies such as Amazon and Facebook. His Open Markets initiative organized a 2016 conference at which a range of influential figures — including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — warned of damaging effects from market consolidation in tech.

In the run-up to that conference, Ms. Slaughter and New America’s lead fund-raiser in emails to Mr. Lynn indicated that Google was concerned that its positions were not going to be represented, and that it was not given advanced notice of the event.

“We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to “just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.”

Mr. Lynn is now starting a stand-alone nonprofit with the same team to continue Open Markets’ work. The new group, which does not yet have a name, has funding commitments, though clearly is not expecting money from Google. It has launched a website called Citizens Against Monopoly that accuses Google of “trying to censor journalists and researchers who fight dangerous monopolies.” The site vows, “We are going to make sure Google doesn’t get away with this.”

After initially eschewing Washington public policy debates, which were seen in Silicon Valley as pay-to-play politics, Google has developed an influence operation that is arguably more muscular and sophisticated than that of any other American company. It spent $9.5 million on lobbying through the first half of this year — more than almost any other company. It helped organize conferences at which key regulators overseeing investigations into the company were presented with pro-Google arguments, sometimes without disclosure of Google’s role.

Among the most effective — if little examined — tools in Google’s public policy toolbox has been its funding of nonprofit groups from across the political spectrum. This year, it has donated to 170 such groups, according to Google’s voluntary disclosures on its website. While Google does not indicate how much cash was donated, the number of beneficiaries has grown exponentially since it started disclosing its donations in 2010, when it gave to 45 groups.

Some tech lobbyists, think tank officials and scholars argue that the efforts help explain why Google has mostly avoided damaging regulatory and enforcement decisions in the United States of the sort levied by the European Union in late June.

But Google’s Washington alliances could be tested in the coming months. Google emerged as a flash point in the latest skirmish of the culture wars this month after one of its male engineers posted a critique of the company’s efforts to diversify. And its data collection continues fueling questions about its commitment to privacy.

Then there are the mounting concerns about the market dominance of Google, which handles an overwhelming majority of all internet searches globally and dominates internet advertising. Its alleged tilting of search results to favor its services over those offered by competitors led to the European Union’s $2.7 billion antitrust penalty in June.

The Open Markets’ statement that drew Mr. Schmidt’s ire praised the fine, and called on United States regulators to more aggressively enforce antitrust rules against Google, Amazon and “other dominant platform monopolists.”

Last month, Democratic congressional leaders rolled out a policy platform that included a pledge to dismantle monopolies, including in cable and internet service, which some read as a challenge to Google in particular. That sentiment — which appears to have some support from populist elements of President Trump’s base — diverges sharply from the approach that had been taken by most Democrats until recently.

Google’s willingness to spread cash around the think tanks and advocacy groups focused on internet and telecommunications policy has effectively muted, if not silenced, criticism of the company over the past several years, said Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. His group, which does not accept corporate funding, has played a leading role in calling out Google and other tech companies for alleged privacy violations. But Mr. Rotenberg said it is become increasingly difficult to find partners in that effort as more groups accept Google funding.

“There are simply fewer groups that are available to speak up about Google’s activities that threaten online privacy,” Mr. Rotenberg said. “The groups that should be speaking up aren’t.”

About Me

First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct.
"My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up.
What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.